Hellen
I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much
Bea Swanson
This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.
Philippa
All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.
SnoopyStyle
In 1973, Jacques Mesrine (Vincent Cassel) is back in France with a new robbery crew and new girlfriend Sylvia Jeanjacquot (Ludivine Sagnier). They are arrested but he escapes during court. He continues his criminal activities until police detective Broussard tracks him down. He's finally put in prison. He reconnects with his daughter and writes a book about his exploits. He befriends fellow inmate François Besse (Mathieu Amalric) and with others, escapes once again. He starts courting the media as a revolutionary. He kidnaps billionaire Henri Lelièvre and finally in 1979, he is gunned down in an ambush.Vincent Cassel is great. This is a string of chaos and crimes. It's insane that he keeps escaping. It's violence and crimes without relief. It's not really a glossy crime drama but it does not let up. Again like Part 1, I would suggest a better medium for the material would be television. It allows the characters to breathe and the story to build.
Dharmendra Singh
'It's pronounced may-reen!' Jacques barks at a police officer for mispronouncing his name while recording a statement for one of his latest misdemeanours. Jacques now claims his crimes are politically motivated, but if anything, they have become less a means to an end than an end in themselves. Sustaining his role as France's number one outlaw becomes a vocation in itself.As his weight increases, so too do his risks. He starts a tradition of stealing from one bank then immediately stealing from another; he cheekily goes incognito to a police station to obtain information they have about him; and he even kidnaps a judge whilst on trial for yet another bank robbery.It can't have been an easy thing for the director to capture or for Cassel to personify, but what is impressive about this modern-day Robin Hood is that no matter how bad he gets he is never quite an Al Capone or a John Dillinger. But it's not long before his inner Mr Hyde resurfaces – this time with catastrophic consequences.Jacques arranges an interview with a policeman-turned-journalist, but it's a set-up, for Jacques confronts him about negative coverage he has given him. What ensues is a highly graphic display of violence. It proves to be one crime too far and prompts the minister of the interior to order police forces to hunt him down.Jacques's vulnerability is exposed in a number of emotional scenes, especially one with his father. When questioned about why he does what he does, there is a heavily pregnant pause before a powerful soliloquy, 'I don't like laws… I won't dream my life away, and I won't pass every store thinking: that'll cost me 10 months' work'.The brilliance of these two films is that both flagrantly show Jacques's demise in their opening scene. However, you either ignore this fact or convince yourself it is not real; testimony no doubt to the allure of the main character and the manner in which his story his conveyed.'Death is nothing to someone who knows how to live.' This matter-of-fact proclamation from Jacques sums up his philosophy from the beginning. Forget politics, forget justice, forget morality. None of these were his motives. Crime was the motive and an addiction to crime was his punishment. Jacques Mesrine always knew that once dead he would be 'guilty of nothing'. And I for one agree.www.scottishreview.net
alicecbr
Mesrine was both a Reniassance man and a sociopath. H cooks wonderfully, loves fine wine and good cigars, as well as fancy women. But he is absolutely ruthless. When he creeps into the hospital to see his dying father, you wonder "What went wrong?" Was the father too strict? Not strict enough? Mesrine obviously had a death wish as he courts his death with flair and imagination.He loves the media, and is loved in return. Unlike the complicit media who lied about Pat Tillman's death at the hands of members of his own company and infuriated his family, Mesrine and Paris Match are on the same page. To see how gentle he is with the family he takes hostage, and how he doesn't desert the other crook who has been shot in the leg, shows you that this murderer has many facets to his character.As I looked up the history of the right-wing writer they leave for dead, I was amused to see a video of him from his hospital bed, and he is very handsome, much more so than the bland actor portraying him. Mesrine, au contraire, is much handsomer than the real Mesrine. But , like many movies about famous people, I am left empty wishing there was more substance to the causal factors in his life.Nonetheless, I am buying both to see again.
koomy
'Mesrine: Killer Instinct' (2008) and 'Mesrine: Public Enemy No. 1' (2008) are two great films filmed back-to-back telling the life and crimes of legendary French criminal Jacques Mesrine. I'd never heard of him before these films came out but it seems he was a bit of a cult figure during the 60's and 70's, mainly due to his outrageous bank robberies and prison breaks.'Mesrine: Killer Instinct' (2008) The first film shows his rise (descent?) into the criminal world and is the better of the two. Vincent Cassel is brilliant in the title role and Gérard Depardieu was also surprisingly good as a gangster boss. It all looks and feels authentic. The only criticism is that it occasionally feels a bit rushed as it jumps from location to location and exploit to exploit. Although this made sections a bit episodic it means the film is fast paced and always exciting/entertaining.'Mesrine: Public Enemy No. 1' (2008) The second film follows on from the first but as with any crime biopic (Blow, Goodfellas etc) the second half of the story is slower and not as much fun, as Mesrine suffers the consequences of his actions including estranged family members, more prison and ultimately his death. However the second film is still good, especially the final scenes which tie in brilliantly with the opening scenes of the first film.Overall a great double bill – especially when you consider I watched them both back-to-back and was never bored or restless (even at a total time of over 3hrs 40mins).
